17606 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 67 / Monday, April 9, 2007 / Notices 

began to show signs of the instrument 

panel warping and that by spring 2006, 

‘‘the defrost bezel began to rattle.’’ In 

July 2006, he contacted the same 

dealership and ‘‘was told that this $400 

repair would not be covered [under the 

TSB]’’ because his vehicle was past 

warranty coverage (36,000 miles/3 

years). 

Determining an appropriate response 

to Mr. Moening’s petition requires 

assessment of the potential safety 

consequences of the alleged defect. A 

review of NHTSA’s consumer complaint 

database for the MY 1999 and 2000 Ford 

Contour and Mercury Mystique vehicles 

in February 2007 revealed 302 

complaints regarding instrument panel 

warping. Most of the complaints report 

that the warping of the instrument panel 

reduces forward visibility or degrades 

the performance of the defroster. Other 

complaints indicate that the repair 

performed by the dealer was only a 

temporary fix and the problem returned. 

A considerable number of complaints 

express concern that the instrument 

panel warping may affect the 

performance of the air bag system, either 

by causing the air bag to deploy 

prematurely or by hindering proper 

inflation of the air bag. However, as of 

November 2006 there were no reports of 

actual improper deployments, nor were 

there reports of injuries, crashes or loss 

of control because of instrument panel 

warping while driving the subject 

vehicle. 

NHTSA evaluated forward visibility 

from the driver’s seating position in a 

subject vehicle, a 1999 Ford Contour, 

with a warped instrument panel (more 

than 3 inches of vertical warping at the 

centerline of the vehicle) and compared 

this to the forward visibility in the 

vehicle with the warped portion of the 

instrument panel held down in its 

proper position. Also, NHTSA used for 

comparison two other vehicles: a 2000 

Ford Contour with an unwarped 

instrument panel and a peer vehicle, a 

2005 Saturn Ion with an unwarped 

instrument panel. NHTSA evaluated the 

visibility using both a 12-inch and a 28- 

inch tall traffic cone placed at various 

positions in front of the subject and peer 

vehicles. NHTSA selected three subject 

drivers; two were short females (4′9′′ 

and 5′3′′ tall) and the other a tall male 

(6′1′′). NHTSA recorded the minimum 

distance from the front of the vehicle to 

the cone that allowed the driver to see 

the top of the cone. 

When conducting the test using the 

28-inch cone, there were negligible 

visibility differences between the 

subject and peer vehicles for all three 

drivers. Similarly, when conducting the 

test using the 12-inch cone, there were 

negligible visibility differences when 

each driver viewed the cone through the 

portion of the windshield directly in 

front of the driver. However, in order for 

each short female to see the top of the 

12-inch cone through the right side of 

the windshield of the 1999 Contour 

with the warped instrument panel, the 

cone needed to be moved two feet 

further from the vehicle than was 

necessary for the same driver to see the 

same cone through the same portion of 

the windshield for either the 1999 

Contour with the instrument panel held 

down or the 2000 Contour with the 

unwarped instrument panel. The 

practical effect of this difference is 

minimal: the smallest drivers still have 

a clear view as they approach such a 

small object (12 inches or less), but 

could lose sight of such an object if it 

is off to the right of their forward field 

of vision just two feet sooner than a 

taller driver would. We believe that the 

observed slight reduction in one portion 

of the field of view that might be 

experienced by the smallest of drivers 

fails to demonstrate any material effect 

on safety. This conclusion is supported 

by the absence of any report in the 

agency’s complaint database of alleged 

loss of control or crash attributed to this 

problem for these vehicles, which have 

now acquired nearly 8 years of field 

experience. 

NHTSA also evaluated the ability of 

the defroster in a 1999 Ford Contour 

with a warped instrument panel to clear 

the windshield of heavy early morning 

frost. NHTSA compared these results 

with the performance of the defrosters 

in three other vehicles with unwarped 

instrument panels: a 2000 Ford Contour, 

a 2005 Saturn Ion and a 1999 Volvo S80. 

The comparison demonstrated that the 

defroster in the subject vehicle with the 

warped instrument panel, though 

functional, required approximately 

three to four minutes longer to clear 

most of the frost from the windshield 

compared with the other vehicles. 

However we do not find this reduction 

in the speed of the defroster’s 

performance to be a likely safety hazard. 

The defroster is still capable of 

performing its intended function. 

The principal concern expressed by 

the petitioner was the potential for 

warping of the instrument panel to 

degrade the performance of the air bag 

system. As of November 2006, NHTSA’s 

consumer complaint database contained 

no allegations that instrument panel 

warping affected the actual deployment 

of the passenger air bag, nor are there 

reports of instrument panel components 

becoming projectiles during air bag 

deployments. Through examination of 

the construction of the instrument panel 

on a subject vehicle, NHTSA 

determined that warping of the 

instrument panel is confined to the 

surface materials of the instrument 

panel, and does not extend to the 

supporting structure of the air bag 

system. Based on a review of the 

agency’s complaint database and 

examination of subject vehicles, we find 

no evidence that the warping of the 

instrument panel could cause either 

inappropriate deployment of the 

passenger air bag, impede proper 

deployment of the passenger air bag, or 

block the air bag deployment path. 

Based on a review of the petitioner’s 

request and the information provided 

above, it is unlikely that NHTSA would 

issue an order for the notification and 

remedy of a safety-related defect at the 

conclusion of an investigation. 

Therefore, in view of the need to 

allocate and prioritize NHTSA’s limited 

resources to best accomplish the 

agency’s safety mission, the petition is 

denied. This action does not constitute 

a finding by NHTSA that a safety-related 

defect does not exist. The agency will 

take further action if warranted by 

future circumstances. 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30162(d); delegations 

of authority at CFR 1.50 and 501.8. 

Daniel C. Smith, 

Associate Administrator for Enforcement. 

[FR Doc. E7–6545 Filed 4–6–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

Petition for Exemption From the 

Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard; Fuji 

Heavy Industries U.S.A., Inc. 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

Department of Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Grant of petition for exemption. 

SUMMARY: This document grants in full 

the Fuji Heavy Industries U.S.A., Inc.’s 

(FUSA) petition for exemption of the 

Subaru Impreza vehicle line in 

accordance with 49 CFR part 543, 

Exemption from the Theft Prevention 

Standard. This petition is granted 

because the agency has determined that 

the antitheft device to be placed on the 

line as standard equipment is likely to 

be as effective in reducing and deterring 

motor vehicle theft as compliance with 

the parts-marking requirements of the 

Theft Prevention Standard (49 CFR part 

541). FUSA requested confidential 

treatment for the information and 

attachments it submitted in support of 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 67 / Monday, April 9, 2007 / Notices 17607 

its petition. In a letter dated November 

27, 2006, the agency granted the 

petitioner’s request for confidential 

treatment of the indicated areas of its 

petition. 

DATES: The exemption granted by this 

notice is effective beginning with model 

year (MY) 2008. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Carlita Ballard, Office of International 

Vehicle, Fuel Economy and Consumer 

Standards, NHTSA, 400 Seventh Street, 

SW., Washington, DC 20590. Ms. 

Ballard’s phone number is (202) 366–

0846. Her fax number is (202) 493–2290. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a 

petition dated October 31, 2006, FUSA 

requested exemption from the partsmarking requirements of the theft 

prevention standard (49 CFR part 541) 

for the Subaru Impreza vehicle line, 

beginning with the 2008 model year. 

The petition has been filed pursuant to 

49 CFR part 543, Exemption from 

Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard, 

based on the installation of an antitheft 

device as standard equipment for an 

entire vehicle line. 

Under § 543.5(a), a manufacturer may 

petition NHTSA to grant exemptions for 

one line of its vehicle lines per model 

year. In its petition, FUSA provided a 

detailed description and diagram of the 

identity, design, and location of the 

components of the antitheft device for 

the Impreza vehicle line. FUSA stated 

that all Impreza vehicles will be 

equipped with a passive, transponderbased electronic immobilizer device as 

standard equipment beginning with MY 

2008. Features of the antitheft device 

will include an electronic key, a passive 

immobilizer system which includes a 

key ring antenna and an engine control 

unit (ECU). The system immobilization 

is automatically activated when the key 

is removed from the vehicle’s ignition 

switch or after 30 seconds if the ignition 

is simply moved to the off position (key 

not removed). The device will also have 

a visible and audible alarm feature. The 

alarm system will monitor the door 

status and key identification. 

Unauthorized opening of a door will 

activate the alarm system horn and 

lamps. FUSA’s submission is 

considered a complete petition as 

required by 49 CFR 543.7 in that it 

meets the general requirements 

contained in 543.5 and the specific 

content requirements of 543.6. 

FUSA also provided information on 

the reliability and durability of its 

proposed device, conducting tests based 

on its own specified standards. In a 

letter dated November 27, 2006, NHTSA 

granted FUSA confidential treatment for 

the test information. FUSA provided a 

list of the tests it conducted. FUSA 

based its belief that the device is reliable 

and durable on the fact that the device 

complied with the specific requirements 

for each test. 

FUSA stated that theft rates for its 

Subaru vehicles have typically been low 

and that based on the most recent 

National Insurance Crime Bureau’s 

(NICB) state-by-state theft results, only 

in 2 out 48 states, including the District 

of Columbia have any Subaru vehicle 

appeared in the top ten list of stolen 

vehicles. Review of the theft rates 

published by the agency through MY/ 

CY 2004 also revealed that, while there 

is some variation, the theft rates for 

Subaru vehicles has on average, 

remained below the median theft rate of 

3.5826. On December 21, 2006, by 

email, FUSA provided a list of similar 

devices for which NHTSA has already 

granted parts marking exemptions. 

FUSA believes that this comparison 

supports its claim that its MY 2008 

immobilizer device will be at least as 

effective in reducing theft as similar 

devices for which the agency has 

already granted exemptions. 

Additionally, FUSA referred to the most 

recent Highway Loss Data Institute’s 

(HLDI) reports that support the 

effectiveness of immobilizing antitheft 

devices and believes that the 

enhancement of electronic 

immobilization will further help to 

reduce its lower theft rates. The agency 

agrees that the device is substantially 

similar to devices in other vehicles lines 

for which the agency has already 

granted exemptions. 

Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 33106 and 49 

CFR 543.7(b), the agency grants a 

petition for an exemption from the 

parts-marking requirements of part 541 

either in whole or in part, if it 

determines that, based upon substantial 

evidence, the standard equipment 

antitheft device is likely to be as 

effective in reducing and deterring 

motor vehicle theft as compliance with 

the parts-marking requirements of part 

541. The agency finds that FUSA has 

provided adequate reasons for its belief 

that the antitheft device will reduce and 

deter theft. This conclusion is based on 

the information FUSA provided about 

its device. 

The agency concludes that the device 

will provide the five types of 

performance listed in § 543.6(a)(3): 

promoting activation; attracting 

attention to the efforts of unauthorized 

persons to enter or operate a vehicle by 

means other than a key; preventing 

defeat or circumvention of the device by 

unauthorized persons; preventing 

operation of the vehicle by 

unauthorized entrants; and ensuring the 

reliability and durability of the device. 

For the foregoing reasons, the agency 

hereby grants in full FUSA’s petition for 

exemption for the vehicle line from the 

parts-marking requirements of 49 CFR 

part 541. The agency notes that 49 CFR 

Part 541, Appendix A–1, identifies 

those lines that are exempted from the 

Theft Prevention Standard for a given 

model year. 49 CFR 543.7(f) contains 

publication requirements incident to the 

disposition of all part 543 petitions. 

Advanced listing, including the release 

of future product nameplates, the 

beginning model year for which the 

petition is granted and a general 

description of the antitheft device is 

necessary in order to notify law 

enforcement agencies of new vehicle 

lines exempted from the parts-marking 

requirements of the Theft Prevention 

Standard. 

If FUSA decides not to use the 

exemption for this line, it must formally 

notify the agency, and, thereafter, the 

line must be fully marked as required by 

49 CFR 541.5 and 541.6 (marking of 

major component parts and replacement 

parts). 

NHTSA notes that if FUSA wishes in 

the future to modify the device on 

which this exemption is based, the 

company may have to submit a petition 

to modify the exemption. Part 543.7(d) 

states that a part 543 exemption applies 

only to vehicles that belong to a line 

exempted under this part and equipped 

with the anti-theft device on which the 

line’s exemption is based. Further, 

§ 543.9(c)(2) provides for the submission 

of petitions ‘‘to modify an exemption to 

permit the use of an antitheft device 

similar to but differing from the one 

specified in that exemption.’’

The agency wishes to minimize the 

administrative burden that part 

543.9(c)(2) could place on exempted 

vehicle manufacturers and itself. The 

agency did not intend part 543 to 

require the submission of a modification 

petition for every change to the 

components or design of an antitheft 

device. The significance of many such 

changes could be de minimis. Therefore, 

NHTSA suggests that if the 

manufacturer contemplates making any 

changes the effects of which might be 

characterized as de minimis, it should 

consult the agency before preparing and 

submitting a petition to modify. 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 33106; delegation of 

authority at 49 CFR 1.50. 

Issued on: April 3, 2007. 

Stephen R. Kratzke, 

Associate Administrator for Rulemaking. 

[FR Doc. E7–6527 Filed 4–6–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES